Journal of Petroleum and Gas Engineering Vol. 2(4), pp. 83-92, April 2011 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.

org/JPGE ISSN 2141-2677 2011 Academic Journals

Review

Application of genetic algorithm to hydrocarbon resource estimation

Hiren K. Patel, Anirbid Sircar*, Soham Sheth and Reshmi Jadvani
School of Petroleum Technology, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Raisan, Gandhinagar-382007, India.
. Accepted 1 March, 2011

Resource estimation is a process by which the economically recoverable hydrocarbons (HC) in place within a reservoir are calculated. The parameter that goes into resource estimation is variable and contains some aspect of risks. Resource can be defined as the total volume of hydrocarbon in place, which is further classified as reserve when proved commercially viable. Reserve estimation can be carried out deterministically while resource estimation is done probabilistically. In this paper we have utilized a probabilistic approach using genetic algorithm (GA) for resource estimation. GA is an adaptive heuristic approach which uses an analogy to the mechanism of Darwins theory of natural selection. This paper discusses the basic structure of GA and its operators that is, encoding, reproduction and termination, followed by the application of GA to a synthetic model for estimating the oil initially in place (OIIP) and recoverable resource, using triangular and lognormal probability distributions. Key words: Genetic algorithm, resource estimation, crossover, mutation. INTRODUCTION In this paper an efficient approach for multimodal parameter optimization using genetic algorithm (GA) is describe. We have tried crossover and mutation to realize twin goals of maintaining diversity of resource parameters such as resource pool, pay, porosity, saturation etc. and sustaining the capacity of genetic algorithm convergence. The model optimization runs of several simulations for nontrivial multimodal functions with varying degree of complexity. A synthetic model was used to demonstrate the capability and functionality of the GA that was developed. The goodness of solution is determined from the fitness value of new generation. Crossover causes the possibility that good solution can generate better ones. Crossover occurs with some probability (Pc). When the solution is not subjected to crossover, new solution (chromosomes) remains unmodified. PREVIOUS WORK
*Corresponding author. E-mail: anirbid.sircar@spt.pdpu.ac.in. Tel: +91 99244 30515. Fax: +91-79-232 75930 Abbreviations: HC, Hydrocarbons; GA, genetic algorithm; Pc, probability of crossover; SA, simulated annealing; NPV, net present value; MA, mimetic algorithm; eCGA, extended compact genetic algorithm; PIPI, probabilistic incremental program evolution; GP, genetic programming; OIIP, oil initially in place; GIIP, gas initially in place; PVT, pressure volume temperature; GP-OLS, genetic programming with an orthogonal least square; DPP, due point pressure; EoS, equation of state; MMBBL, million barrels; RR, recovery rate; STB, stock tank barrels; RB, reservoir barrels; INGC, Iranian National Gas Company.

During past few years genetic algorithm has been used in many engineering problems where uncertainty prevailed in the input parameters. To optimize solution to such problems where the answer is non-trivial, global optimization scheme, known as genetic algorithm is utilized. GA is a concept borrowed from biology and is basically a stochastic inversion technique. It used the concept of Forward modeling and Inversion. The distribution used for inverting the input parameters has to be classified based on probability function. In the present context we have used first a triangular distribution and then lognormal distribution. The beauty of the technique is that

84

J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

it does not require a priori knowledge of the initial solution. GA can work without any knowledge of the model solution. However, as in other type of stochastic inversion, the final output obtained after each trial varies from the previous one. Work carried out by previous researches on GA is summarized subsequently. Martinez et al. (1994) examined the GA for optimum distributions of gas injection rates for maximizing the oil production. They employed GA based optimization approach for gas injection and got around 20% increment in productivity of the whole field of Corpoven S. A (CORPOLAG). Also, Sen et al. (1995) applied the GA approach along with simulated annealing (SA) phenomena for generating the optimum value of permeability for an Antolini Sandstone using variograms. They compared the GA with Metropolis and Heat-Bath SA and concluded the mixed resolution. According to their view GA provided better converging global optimum solution than the other two approaches but on other side GA consume more computing time. Harding et al. (1998) employed GA in production scheduling for group of the linked oil and gas field to maximize the total net present value (NPV). They compared the optimum values of NPV using the methods like SA, sequential quadratic programming, Hybrid SA, GA and mimetic algorithm (MA) (a Hybrid GA). Among all solution methods MA, which incorporated the phenomena of local optimization of each new solution before the evaluation, offered more reliable result provided that, time is not the constraint. Romero et al. (2000) introduced modified GA for reservoir characterization with the help of predefined geological data and structural model to achieve best prediction of reservoir performance. Their approach preceded the use of refining local search techniques such as Hill Climbers or Gradient Optimizers to induce the global optimum value of reservoir models by GA. Furthermore, Fichter et al. (2000) applied GA to the portfolio optimization in oil and gas field. They compared GA with rank and cut methodology and purely random search approach, to acquire the optimum values for the project size and other complexities (that is, contractual obligations for minimum participation within a region). They ensured the effectiveness and accuracy of GA with the incremental project size and number of simulations. Mohaghegh et al. (2000) explained the virtual intelligence technique for evolutionary computing to design optimum hydraulic fractures applied on the Clinton Sand in Northeast Ohio. By generating around 100 random solutions of hydraulic design parameters using GA they ascertained the highest potential candidate wells, which yield the best post fracture deliverability. The facture design generated by the use of GA was quite satisfactory with the field results.

Sastry et al. (2003) introduced the genetic programming (GP) based on the extended compact genetic algorithm (eCGA) and probabilistic incremental program evolution (PIPE). They developed the simple GA and eCGA by using operators such as programmed tree encoding, tournament selection, 100% crossover probability and no mutation. They tested both the GA with two different problems that is, (1) OneMax: A GP-easy problem, and (2) Deceptive trap: A GP-hard problem. Through test they concluded that the eCGA scales-up polynomially with the problem size for both GP-easy and GP-hard problem while, the simple GA scales-up polynomially for a GP-easy problem and exponentially for GP hard problems. Sircar et al. (2003) used evolutionary programming to develop the optimum value of H.C. reserve estimation and minimizing the risk probability. They generated the GA using the concept of Chi-square error as a fitness function and took around 10,000 iterations for the solution of global optima value which applied to the Rajasthan Basin for prospecting the OIIP. By comparing the optimum values resulted by GA with the standard solution from Crystal-Ball software they conclude the satisfactory outcomes. Tavakkolian et al. (2004) applied GA approach for optimizing the performance of hydrocarbon producing wells. They developed the MATLAB code, based on GA to define the optimum size of tubing and the depth at which tubing size should vary, size of choke, number of separators and separators pressure. Their research aimed to optimize all these parameters to obtain maximum economical profit or maximum fractional liquid recovery with improved hydrocarbon production. They concluded that the GA does not require any derivative information and it proved as an influential tool for solution of various problems in petroleum engineering. Hajizadeh et al. (2007) employed the GA based model for viscosity prediction. For prediction of optimum value of viscosity (centipoise) he used four parameters, as model input that is, pressure (psia), temperature ( reservoir F), fluid gas oil ratio (scf/bbl of stock tank oil) and oil density (gm/cc). He compared his model with two Iranian PVT reports for the field located in Khuzestan and three fluid characterization reports, which together provided 89 data points for reservoir fluid viscosity. The model took around 18 hours run time and more than 2 billion run to predict the viscosity, which was quite accurate one. In addition, Shokir (2008) applied genetic programming with an orthogonal least square algorithm (GP-OLS) to generate a dew point pressure (DPP) prediction model represented by tree structures, for gas condensate reservoir. He took 380 gas condensate samples, among which 245 were used to build the DPP model based on GP-OLS and 135 data points were used for testing the results with other model for prediction of DPP, that is, Nemeth and Kennedy, Elsharkawy co-relations and the Peng-Robinson equation of sates (EoS). He concluded

Sircar et al.

85

that the GP based DPP prediction of Gas condensate resulted in around 4.2% average absolute relative error in comparison to the 6.17% for Nemeth and Kennedy, 11.54% for Elsharkawy and 5.65% for the PengRobinson Eos. Emerick et al. (2009) described the GA for the simultaneous optimization of number, location and trajectory of producer and injector wells. They implemented the technique called Genocop III- genetic algorithm for numerical optimization of constrained problems to deal with well placement constraints such as grid size, maximum length of wells, minimum distance between wells, inactive grid cells etc. By introducing this approach, instead of the currently used trial and error method for optimizing the aforementioned parameters, they developed a software and applied it to three full-field reservoir models based on real cases. As a result they found significant increase in net present value (NPV) and cumulative oil production in contest to the conventional ways. Rezain et al. (2010) employed the GA for design and implementation of gas distribution network at Ferdous field operated by Iranian National Gas Company (INGC). It aimed to optimize the pipe diameter and distribution cost. By conceiving the approximate maximum indoor and industrial consumption, they achieved optimum value of minimum operating pressure of pipeline and maximum gas velocity. The use of GA approach resulted in 64% reduction in project implementation cost. GENETIC ALGORITHM Genetic Algorithm (GA) was invented by John Holland (1992) in the year 1975. It is an adaptive heuristic searching methodology, introduced on the evolutionary ideas of natural selection and genetics, which follows the Charles Darwins principle of Survival of the Fittest. Genetic Algorithm represents an intelligent development of a random search within a defined search space (also called as population) to obtain the optimum solution of the problems. As Genetic Algorithm provides a fast and efficient solution among the other conventional optimazation and search techniques, this approach became popular in many disciplines of engineering world for the precise estimation. The conventional procedure for the solution through Genetic Algorithm was carried out using three means that is, Encoding, Reproduction and termination, which are illustrated in following discussion (Goldberg, 2000; Sivanandan, 2008). ENCODING Each chromosome contains some information, which needs to be presented in such a manner that

computations can be carried out. This process of representation of chromosomes is called encoding, that can be done by binary encoding, octal encoding, hexadecimal encoding, permutation encoding, value encoding or tree encoding. The selection of encoding method varies according to the nature of problems. Binary encoding is widely used for most of problem solving techniques in which sequences of 1's and 0's represents the value of chromosomes. Each bit of the solution represents some characteristics of the solution. This approach is not natural for many problems and some correction must be made after genetic operation is completed. REPRODUCTION The reproduction process is the heart of genetic algorithm, used for searching and creating hopefully the fitter individuals. Reproduction comprises the following four operators: Selection Crossover (Recombination) Mutation Replacement Selection Selection is the process of choosing two parents randomly from the population. The next step after encoding is to select the individuals from the population which will create the offspring for the next generation. The purpose of selection is to assort the weakest and fittest individual from the parents and replace the weakest by fittest in promises that offsprings have higher fitness. This procedure follows the Darwins theory of evolution, which says the best ones survive to create new offspring. The selection can be performed by the procedure like Roulette wheel selection, random selection, rank selection, tournament selection, Boltzmann, Selection stochastic universal sampling etc. Among all of the aforementioned the Roulette wheel selection is commonly used for selection. In this process all chromosomes of the population are placed on a wheel known as Roulette Wheel. Every chromosome has its place according to its fitness value as shown in Figure 1. Here chromosome 2 represents the weakest individual and chromosome 3 represents the fittest one. Thus for the generation of new offspring chromosome 2 has been replaced by chromosome 3. Crossover (Recombination) In crossover two parents generate an offspring, which enriched with better individuals. In this process the

86

J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Figure 1. Roulette wheel.

Figure 2. Crossover operations.

exchange of the good information from the parent chromosomes can be carried out to generate the offspring. The crossover only creates clones of good strings, it does not create a new population. There are many techniques to perform crossover, such as single point crossover, two point crossover, multi point crossover, cut and splice crossover, uniform crossover, shuffle crossover, precedence preservative crossover, partially matched crossover etc. Any of the aforementioned crossover procedures follows the following three steps: Random selection of the two individual parents. Selection of cross site along the string. Swapping the values between two strings from the crossover site. Figure 2 shows some of the common cross over techniques.

Mutation Crossover is followed by the mutation operation, which prevents the algorithm to fall into the local optimum solution. Mutation makes small random modification in offspring which helps to explore the search space of the algorithm by maintaining diversity in the population. Mutation can be carried out either by flipping, interchanging or reversing of bits (Figure 3). Crossover and mutation operations may not be performed every time for producing new chromosome. If crossover is not performed, the offspring are same as the parents. The rates of crossover and mutation operations are called crossover probability (Pc) and mutation probability (Pm), respectively. The crossover probability should be higher (> 80%) and mutation probability should be relatively low (<3%), however for some cases higher mutation probability gives better results. Higher mutation probability can turn the GA in a random search algorithm.

Sircar et al.

87

Figure 3. Mutation operations.

Replacement Replacement is the last stage of reproduction cycle. Crossover and mutation operations result into four populations that is, two parents and two offspring (or children), but not all the four can be used for formation of simulation purpose. We need to select only two populations from the four, which provide the effective convergence criteria. The replacement can be performed either by random replacement, single parent replacement or replacement of both the parents. TERMINATION Reproduction performs infinite iterations, so we need to decide some convergence criteria for obtaining optimum solution. The convergence criteria determines when to terminate the GA, either by providing the maximum number of generations, deciding elapsed time or ending the algorithm when small enough change in fitness. The outline of basic Genetic Algorithm is laid out below (Figure 4): Define the range of chromosome (X) that is, generate the population space and find the sampling interval (Resolution) using,

l is the no. of bits assigned for defining the chromosome values nl define the range of chromosome. Generate random population (parents) and encode each chromosome of the parents by binary coding. Thus Xi encoded into Yi, where Xi indicates the population of chromosome before encoding and Yi shows the parents after encoding. Evaluate the fitness function such as, F(y)=ln(Yi) by defining the fitness probability using,

Using the Roulette Wheel selection method, find the fittest and weakest parents, and replace the weakest one by fittest one. Perform crossover and mutation operations by maintaining the crossover probability relatively higher (>80%) and mutation probability as low as possible (<3%). If F(z) F(y), that is, the offspring (Zi) is having less fitness than parents(Yi), then perform the aforementioned steps 2, 3, 4 and 5 again for fitness improvements of the offspring. Replace the parents chromosomes (Yi) by offspring (Zi), if F(z) F(y) that is, the offspring is having more fitness than the parents. Define the termination criterion for titrations, that is, if {F(z)-F(y)}+0.005, or the number of iteration, N reaches 1000; stop the simulation and get the output. Decode the output chromosome (X). into real (original) value of

....

(1)

Where, Xmax is highest value and Xmin is lowest value of the parameter in definite range n is the base of encoding (that is, for Binary encoding n=2, Octal encoding n=8 etc.)

88

J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Figure 4. Basic genetic algorithm.

Sircar et al.

89

Table 1. Parameters for resource calculations.

Variables 2 Area (Km ) Pay (m) Porosity (%) Bo Saturation (%) Recovery Factor (%)

Minimum 11 4 10 1.0781 55 10

Most likely 14.6 17 12 1.0782 65 12

Maximum 17 31 15 1.0783 70 15

Optimum value 14.20 17.33 10.782 1.0782 63.33 12.33

Table 2. Simulation results of OIIP and RR by triangular and lognormal distribution.

Estimated resource Triangular distribution OIIP(MMBBL) Recoverable resource (MMBBL) OIIP(MMBBL) Recoverable resource (MMBBL)

P10 63.2273 7.6585 69.2133 8.3899

P50 111.1026 13.6326 105.9396 13.0118

P90 163.7351 19.9592 161.9368 20.1574

Lognormal distribution

End the algorithm CASE STUDY In order to confirm the efficacy of the developed algorithm a synthetic example of the application of GA to reserve estimation is demonstrated. For estimating the recoverable hydrocarbon resource we have used the following two equations which define oil initially in place (OIIP) and recoverable resource (RR) (Sircar et al., 2005):

Step 1: Defining the model (Inputs and Outputs) For the model adopted, hydrocarbon pool, pay, porosity, oil saturation, recovery factor and formation volume factor are used as input to get the output that is, oil initially in place and recoverable resources. Input variable has been distributed in three range of probable values that is, minimum, most likely and maximum. Using triangular probability distribution we got the optimum values of each parameter (Table 1). Putting these optimum values in aforementioned two equations we get the mean output. Step 2: Perform primary simulation . (2) Performing simulation ten times and setting each simulation by 1000 iterations (that is, the no. of times expend whole output is recalculated using a different set of random variables) we achieved the values of OIIP and RR in three different range that is, P10, P50 and P90 (P= Percentile) (Table 2). The probability distribution curves of OIIP and RR along with mean and standard deviations values are shown in Figure 5. Step 3: Perform secondary simulation Using the mean () and standard deviation () resulting from simulation by triangular distributions of OIIP (=111.9392, = 38.1725) and RR (=13.8013, =4.8679), we perform secondary simulation. Here we use mean and standard deviation from triangular distribution, to generate the lognormal distribution. Now

(3) Where, So= Oil saturation (%) Bo= Formation volume factor (STB/RB) (at 14.7 psi and 60 F) 6.29 is multiplying factor for convert one cubic meter to one Barrel (BBL) MMBBL=Million Barrels The solution procedure is carried out in mainly four steps which consist of the definition of model, primary simulation using triangular distribution, secondary simulation by lognormal distribution and defining convergence criteria.

90

J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Oil Initially In Place (MMBBL)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200

PERCENTILE

O IIP(MMBBP) Minimu m 25.4184 Maximu m 230.9773 Mean 111.9391 Std Dev Values 38.1725 1000

OIIP(MMBBL)

Recoverable Resource(MMBBL)
100 90

PERCENTILE

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

RR(MMBBP) Minimu m 3.2394 Maximu m 31.7007 Mean 13.8013 Std Dev 4.8679 Values 1000

RR (MMBBL)

Figure 5. Simulation results of triangular distribution.

performing simulation by setting 1000 iterations, we induced the probability distribution curve and the modified values (P10, P50, and P90) of OIIP and RR as shown in Figure 6 and Table 2. Step 4: Convergence Criteria In both simulations we considered that the standard optimum values of resources estimation would be obtain after 1000 iterations. Thus 1000 iterations in single particular simulation have been determined as the converging criterion for our case. OBSERVATION AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The resource estimation values obtained by both triangular and lognormal distributions are shown in Table 2 and the probability distribution for OIIP and RR are shown graphically in Figures 5 and 6. From Table 2 and

Figures 5 and 6 respectively, it is observed that the Pmean value in lognormal distribution is slightly less than the value drawn by triangular distribution. Also, the sensitivity analysis of OIIP and RR carried out by triangular simulation is shown in Table 3 and the graphical representation of sensitivity analysis for RR is given in Figure 7. From this result shown in Table 2 and graphical representation we can conclude that Pay is highly sensitive and formation volume factor (Bo) is least sensitive in estimation of the resource. Thus in this example the values of the Pay thickness, act as a major controlling factor that affect the reserve estimation. CONCLUSION This paper has described the role and importance of Genetic Algorithm to solve complicated problems in various fields of the Petroleum Engineering. By considering the synthetic data for resource estimation using genetic algorithm we can conclude that the lognormal

Sircar et al.

91

Oil Initially In Place (MMBBL)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200
O IIP(MMBBP ) Minimu m 31.8268 Maximu m 416.8482 Mean 112.0255 Std Dev 38.7887 Values 1000

PERCENTILE

OIIP(MMBBL)

Recoverable Resource (MMBBL)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25
RR(MMBBP) Minimu m 4.1869 Maximu m 48.5274 Mean 13.8114 Std Dev 4.9249 Values 1000

PERCENTILE

RR (MMBBL)
Figure 6. Simulation results of lognormal distribution.

Figure 7. Regression coefficient (sensitivity analysis) for recoverable resource.

92

J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Table 3. Sensitivity analysis of OIIP and RR carried out by triangular distribution.

Parameter Pay(m) Area(Km 2) Porosity (%) Recovery Factor (%) Saturation (%) Bo

OIIP Correlation coefficient 0.918 0.249 0.241 N/A 0.139 0.000

Recoverable resource correlation coefficient 0.899 0.245 0.240 0.236 0.134 0.000

probability distribution provides a relatively better means for resource estimation. The values obtained by the lognormal are slightly lower than those derived from the triangular distribution. This leads to a higher confidence in estimating the parameters which assure the convergence to a local optimum as well as global optimum.
REFERENCES Emerick A, Silva E, Messer B, Almeida L, Szwarcman D, Pacheco M, Marley M (2009). Well Placement Optimization Using a Genetic Algorithm with Nonlinear Constraints.SPE 118808-MS. Fichter D (2000). Application of Genetic Algorithms in Portfolio Optimization for the Oil and Gas Industry. SPE 62970-MS. Goldberg D (1989). Genetic Algorithm in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Pp. 65-100. Hajizadeh Y (2007). Viscosity prediction of crude oils with genetic algorithms. SPE 106763-MS. Harding T, Radcliffe N, King P (1998). Hydrocarbon Production Scheduling With Genetic Algorithms. SPE 36379-PA. Holland J (1992). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. A Bradford Book, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England. Martinez E, Moreno W, Moreno J, Maggiolo R (1994). Application of Genetic Algorithm on the Distribution of Gas-Lift Injection. SPE 26993-MS. Mohaghegh S (2000). Virtual Intelligence and its applications in petroleum Engineering, Part 2- Evolutionary Computing. JPT.

Rezain A, Alipanah M, Nezamabadi H, Kazemi H, Bahonar S (2010). A Genetic Algorithm Approach to Determination of Optimum Diameter of Gas Transmission Pipes. SPE 140671-MS. Romero C, Carter J, Gringarten A, Zimmerman R (2000). A Modified Genetic Algorithm for Reservoir Characterisation. SPE 64765-MS. Sastry K, Goldberg D (2003). Probabilistic Model Building and Competent Genetic Programming. Illinois Genetic Algorithm Laboratory Report No. 2003013. Sen M, Datta-Gupta A, Stoffa P, Lake L, Pope G (1995). Stochastic Reservoir Modeling Using Simulated Annealing and Genetic Algorithm. SPE 24754-PA. Shokir E (2008). Dewpoint Pressure Model for Gas Condensate Reservoir Based on Genetic Programming. Energy Fuels, 22: 31943200. Sircar A, Sing V, Bora A (2003). Hydrocarbon Reserve Estimation using Evolutionary Programming Techniques. Curr. Sci., 85(1): pp. 82- 85. Sircar A, Chauhan S (2005). Hydrocarbon Estimation using Lognormal Evolutionary Programming Technique. Indian J. Petroleum Geol., 14(2): 1-7. Sivanandan S (2008). Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 55-58 Tavakkolian M, Jalali F and Emadi M (2004). Production Optimization using Genetic Algorithm Approac h. SPE 88901-MS.